What Unites Republicans May Be Changing. Same With Democrats.

Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in high-quality and civil discussion. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, all posts must contain a submission statement. See the rules
If an article is paywalled, please do not request or post its contents. Use
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please
”...and a Trump/Barr vision that is decidedly Judeo-Christian".
I think Jesus, were he actually to return, would NOT align him self with Trump/Barr.
He would be too busy administering to the homeless. Giving aid to the people crossing the border. He'd be trying to visit those little kids in those stupid f****** camps. He would be doing his best to help those who are sick and uninsured.
I am sure he would be saddened to see how far people have strayed from his word while aligning themselves together purportedly under his name.
Pretty good chance Jesus would be in jail right now.
Edit: Thanks for the gold kind stranger.
There's a reason that Trump ranted against Pelosi saying she "prays for him". Many evangelicals don't like Trump but support him for theological reasons. They believe he's going to bring about the Rapture. He's not.
I’m almost certain Jesus will be flipping tables and cracking whip.
This is an excellent article. I like the Sanders/Warren approach of resetting America along more equal lines.
I would hate to point out that they have more than one Jesus in custody at this very moment... I guarantee it.
Jesus didn't align himself with any politics to begin with. He even rolled out when they tried to put him into office.
But you see, you're not a rich, powerful man trying to minipulate control and steal from the meek. Therefore, no one cares what you think Jesus would do.
Taking a page from C.S. Lewis. If Jesus were alive today, then he would be a third positionist. He didn't like money changers. But he also didn't like female leadership. Neither the left nor the right can really claim Christianity with full honesty.
Jesus returned as an autistic girl
This is so retarded. We are the world’s sole superpower in the 21st century. Who cares what a 1st century charity worker/philosopherwoukd do in the modern day? We have a minuscule homeless rate, but with 300 million people, it seems like more of a problem than it is. Giving them bread and fishes isn’t going to solve the problem. People crossing the border and kids being detained are not due to us being shitty, it’s because we are awesome and people are scrambling to get here. The truth is, if you want to do nice things for your fellow man, no one is stopping you. But when it comes to actually running this machine, we don’t need a sanctimonious hippy
submission statement I found this piece interesting as it ties together several bird's eye trends in American politics into a fundamental realigning of the parties, going from the previously ideology driven Republicans morphing into an identity-based party, and the formerly identity-based Democrats becoming more ideologically focused. I won't spoil the arguments with lame attempts at distilling them into tldr, but I found them compelling. I also thought the ideas were treated with the appropriate level of caveats and limitations.
I would adjust it to say that the GOP was already identity based, and is simply becoming more overtly so.
The thing with the Democratic party is you can just as easily argue it is based around anti-identity as based around identity. After all, if your identity is that you are diverse and prize tolerance then you are closer to the exact opposite of the most basic, traditional form if identity group: a race-based alliance.
I fear the article is engaging in a bit of latent "both sides"-ism stemming from an academic impulse to appear impartial. But underlying that may be a failure of terminology. If two such wildly different organizations as the GOP and Democratic party can both be said to be based around identity then that term has been stretched so far it's virtually meaningless. I mean, how can "identity politics" encompass both bigotry-based politics and tolerance-based politics? There's a partisan bone of contention in there sure, but on a definitional level it just doesn't make sense, and I think is leading to sloppy thinking.
I mean both parties have been coalitions of many different groups. Though it does seem like republicans are doubling down on the white christian identity, which might work well in the short run but is going to be really bad for them in the long run.
I see this as a good thing: That book "assymetric politics." that they mentioned started with the observation that Americans consistently support conservative rhetoric and liberal policy positions. It ended with the logical conclusion of that premise, or at least a logical conclusion from that premise: There is an aporia in American public opinion stopping really political change and legislative action, and finoodling with election law and campaign finance law won't fix that. If the Republicans are becoming less ideological and the Democrats are becoming more ideological, then it will force Americans to realize that its either one or the other. So then real political change can happen again. The last major piece of legislation was the PPACA 9 years ago. So if you approve of that act, now we can have more of the same. If you don't approve of it, then there is at least a chance that the government will do something that you do like if they do something. They can't do the PPACA again because the PPACA all ready exists.
TIL Aporia- an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction in a text, argument, or theory.
I agree with what you are saying here, but I think a more thorough look into economic policies would help make this article stronger.
Well I never.
This probably has a lot to do with race. Another factor is that in abstract terms, independents favor Republican ideas (“I like small government”), while in concrete terms, Democratic (“Let’s expand Medicare benefits”). So each party has used the pitch that works best for it with undecideds.
We’re in a special time, with Republicans terrified of Trump’s followers and Democrats courting ideological extremists for the primaries, and I wouldn’t read too much into those, but the point may be right. Economics is less of a political issue than it used to be, and culture and political philosophy have risen. I don’t see such a clear abstract-vs-concrete switch there, and if there is, it probably goes the opposite way, with the average person anti-racist in the abstract but a little bit racist in practice.
On a personal level, my interest in specific issues has gone down, partly because gridlock means not much happens anyway, partly because of a rising belief that the government’s structure is obsolete and that’s hurting us more than any specific politician or policy. That includes both parties — they know the old rules don’t apply any more and they’re groping about for new strategies. I would find it interesting if there was a party that declined to take a stance on all the 50-50 bitter controversies and said their top goal was better aligning government agencies and oligopoly businesses with public desires and values — basically going after exploitation by the powerful, whoever they are. That would be democracy and rule of law to me.
Even the farthest left candidate in the race fits in the normal democratic spectrum of the last 100 years. They're just farther left than the party has been since it veered sharply right in the 90s, a shift which resulted in the party taking damage just about everywhere since then as it abandoned its traditional bases.
Candidates like Bernie and warren are trying to return the party to its roots
Trump's followers are the Republican party. Some older Republican politicians may fear them- but they constitute the vast majority of Republican voters. I live in a very red county in a very blue state. In my office every day I hear Republican voters praise Trump and deride anything remotely 'liberal' or 'socialist' (their favorite terms to describe and deride the 'Democrat party'). The scare quotes in my previous sentence are there because all of these are essentially equivalent curse words for the voting populace of my very Republican county.
I hear what you're saying, and you're right that cultural issues are getting more and more attention (for better and for worse), but progressive democratic candidates are pushing solutions to economic issues which recognizes rampant inequality abuses of crony capitalism. I think this is more closely aligned with the zeitgeist and far more important than whatever social issue is cycling through the news at the moment.
Not that social issues shouldnt be addressed and aren't worth the battles needed to make progress, but still.
Then there's the battle over Trump's tax cuts as well, a blatant fraud perpetrated on the American people and measurably so at this point.
These issues exist in the forefront of my thinking, while we all have to swim through the noise and overwhelming corruption of the current administration, we don't have to lose sight of these topics.
This is the progressive movement.
Sorry what?
An FDR-style Democrat is an extremist?
Really shows you how far the window has been dragged
"Democrats courting ideological extremists"
Yeesh, swing and a miss there. I guess when you're so far right, having the government provide healthcare and education is seen as "ideological extremism".
There is no one in modern American politics close to being a far-left extremist, least of all any of the Democratic presidential candidates.
No one is calling for all property and businesses to be publicly owned, no one is calling for the workers to seize the means of production, no one is calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Why is that so hard? Why are people so easily divided against their own self interest?
Sorry, you mean the guy who give The Idiot one-in-three odds? The data nerd who, in the face of Republicans swearing up and down they'd never support such a craven narcissistic bigot, looked at the charts and said he had an alarmingly reasonable chance of seizing power? That Nate Silver?
You mean the analyst who was the closest to predicting the 2016 election? That Nate Silver?
If that's who you can't take seriously, what do you actually take seriously?
No need to post here then!
Useless comment that adds literally nothing to the discussion.